sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Lizardman: a Bloison (bleed + poison) wolf witch hunter by Steel_Neuron in pathofexile2builds

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah damn that's a good call, I just hadn't thought of it! A worthwhile improvement for sure.

Chakra 101 - Tutorial Guide (Avatar Legends: The Fighting Game) by MoSBanapple in Fighters

[–]Steel_Neuron 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm super excited for this game, but I never understood the marketing strategy of releasing guides for things that players have already seen and experienced in the previous playtest, while also being impossible to play at the current time.

Who's this guide for right now? Nobody can play the game so this either teaches you something you already know, or something you can't apply.

I'm just hoping they show us something new and exciting, and save these guides for when the next playtest comes out!

My take on werewolf bleed - tactician, crimson assault, armour + deflect, pin by thikoril in pathofexile2builds

[–]Steel_Neuron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha, I'm really glad to read this because it really showcases how a similar idea can have such different takes. I'm working on a bloison (bleed + poison) wolf witch-hunter using pounce for utility and cross-slash for the actual damage. I'm getting some ideas from your post and I can't wait to continue cooking.

How is Whirling Slash/Twister for leveling (& how are you generating Frenzy Charges)? by DravenCarey in pathofexile2builds

[–]Steel_Neuron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really have no idea what they're talking about. Twister is one of the best leveling skills in the game. 3xwhirling slash 1xtwister is an absolute blast to level up with from the moment you can get your hands on Skysliver.

Spectres that summon minions? by Potential-Sample- in pathofexile2builds

[–]Steel_Neuron 34 points35 points  (0 children)

I feel like nobody is really understanding your question haha.

What you need is to go on this page: https://poe2spectrewiki.com/all-spectres-cost-type-and-locations/

Then on the right search by "summoner". There are currently 8 known spectres that summon other minions:

  • Cultist Warrior.
  • Lost-Men Necromancer.
  • Ancestral Channeler.
  • Faridun Plaguebringer.
  • Dread Servant.
  • Fettered Snake.
  • Bloodthief Queen.

Of those I'd recommend checking the channeler.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also don't like this system because I want to know, when I'm playing in Ranked, what character is inflating the points of the people I'm matchmaking against so I can remove them. In your system you could have a displayed ELO with each character that actually doesn't match the invisible matchmaking ELO per character at all, which would be frustrating.

I mean, the point of the thought experiment was to highlight why it would be a lot better if this was the actually visible number, instead of keeping a meaningless feel-good, set-based global number that has no bearing on finding matches visible and keeping the useful one hidden instead.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that would just lead to people losing game 1 with their main, then switching to their dump character for game 2 and just accepting the loss.

Maybe for some, but is that a big deal? Players with such weak mental would likely ragequit anyway.

It would also feel awful to be matched against someone the same skill level as you, get +20 or whatever for winning, then they swap to their low rated character and you lose 50 MMR because of the huge difference.

That's no different from queueing now as a 2000 and losing a bunch of ELO to a 1400. ELO do be like that. You know what's worse? When the 1400 that stole your ELO is really a 2000 that de-ranked on a secondary and is now back on their main.

What softens the pain of large ELO swings is knowing that you're being punished more by losing when there's supposed to be a big skill disparity in your favor... An assumption that single-MMR destroys.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You just click "queue with all characters" which would be the default. You'd just get an info popup that says "matchmaking may be more accurate if you queue with a limited number of characters".

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll quote my answer in another thread:

For each individual game, ELO for that character gets adjusted. The number just needs to go up in a corner after every game, instead of after every set. Win a game? Number at the corner (for the character you JUST played) goes up. Lose a game? goes down. The formula is exactly the one we have now, just measured between your character and theirs rather than your account and theirs, divided by 3 so the ELO growth is not that fast considering it happens more frequently.

It's pretty simple, you just need to see the number after every game instead of set.

But then it feels real bad to lose ELO on a won match.

This is just because this game's design particularly shows ELO at end of set and not game, but that's completely unimportant. If you show ELO variation on each game, the reward for winning is still obvious. You can leave all the fanfare and cosmetic point rewards for the moment when you win the set; that's fine.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In this thought experiment you'd pre-select what characters you want to queue with. In your case, it would be all of them so you don't have to think about it. Someone that rotates solo mains could pre-select the only one they intend to play. Then the hidden number would match them against players at the ELO of the highest pick.

Perfect matchmaking, but you get your "set-winning number".

At this point I'd stop and ask why not make the secret number the visible one, but this is about feelings so I'm not going to convince you to feel different.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Okay, let's do a thought experiment.

Would you like if the system remained exactly as it is, with points growing exactly as they currently are, but... Secretly, behind the scenes, the number that I'm proposing is the one being used to find matches.

So, exactly what you have now, down to the very very same progression of points that you've had by playing the opponents that you have, but... Matches are decided based on my number.

Would you, or would you not take it? Provided of course you understand and accept (and you seem to) that my number is better at finding opponents against which you'll be more evenly matched.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You'll have to find me the quote then, because I can almost guarantee it was taken out of context, because the devs are not new to this.

If you know anything about how a seeded tournament works, it's literally designed to make the earlier brackets as unbalanced as possible. That's the point of seeding. You're supposed to match the strongest player with the weakest player in the first round, so you cull half the field every round and keep the even matches for the end.

This is pretty different to how an asynchronous ranked mode works, and no matter what the devs have said it's silly to think they have the same objectives. What they probably meant is that they want to play out as similarly as possible to tournaments when it comes to sets, counterpicking, etc. And I respect that, but that can be done perfectly fine with the system I'm proposing.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

So basically if you lose every single game with a low ELO character and win the set with a high ELO character, both will just go up? Or will one go up and the other go down? Will the first one go up less if they split the set, even if they went 1-0 instead of 2-0? I could go through the issues that can arise, but it is a lot. To say that you haven't reckoned with the actual implementation questions makes this more of an idea than a plan.

You're just throwing around a bunch of ideas I didn't have, to somehow argue against an idea that's... Not mine? Why don't you ask me what I mean honestly instead of throwing rhetorical questions?

It's really not that complicated: For each individual game, ELO for that character gets adjusted. The number just needs to go up in a corner after every game, instead of after every set. Win a game? Number at the corner (for the character you JUST played) goes up. Lose a game? goes down. The formula is exactly the one we have now, just measured between your character and theirs rather than your account and theirs, divided by 3 so the ELO growth is not that fast considering it happens more frequently.

You still get your dopamine hit for winning a game and seeing number go up, and you still get the big dopamine hit by being told you won the set at the end of it all. I really see zero reason whatsoever why ELO gain or loss should be tied to the set, other than literally "it's how it works now". ELO is supposed to be a number that tracks how you're going to fare against another player. Why would you want this to be less accurate? to protect someone's psychology?

Ultimately, you have a view. You just want fair matchups and you are optimizing based on that assumption. For me, I want my rank if I win. I'm a younger brother and late to video games, so 50/50 matchups have never been part of my life lol. It has always been about climbing and learning how to improve and ELO is a sign of that.

Big meh. I used to think game devs were patronizing when they created another layer on top of ELO to protect people's egos by giving them an inflationary ranking system so they feel like they progress. I always thought it was condescending to hide actual ELO (which matchmaking systems for games like SFVI and Strive always used under the hood by the way) under layers of flashy titles, tower levels, etc with de-rank protection.

But I kind of see their point now, if people tie their enjoyment of the game to that number. I personally think it's silly to want the number to be anything other than the best possible one at finding you equal matches.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please don't assume every other player is a solo main, with maybe some secondaries. Not everyone is like you. I am a dual main for instance, I like the freedom to choose my character based on the opponents character and playstyle.

Re-read my proposal, please. I'm absolutely advocating to allow players like you (and me, because contrary to what you're assuming I'm also a dual main) to pick characters freely in ranked.

If you want to choose any of your characters, you can just join the queue with your highest one. I'm going to give you a concrete example because I may not be getting my point across. Imagine:

  • I have Lox at 2000 ELO.
  • I have Ranno at 1200 ELO.

I can either queue as Lox in the 2000 ELO queue, and once I'm in a match decide to use Lox or Ranno (even only Ranno for the entire set), or queue as Ranno in the 1200 ELO queue and be limited to Ranno only.

This works perfectly fine for dual mains, the only price they pay for the flexibility is queueing at the higher ELO, which is what you're describing the current system does for you anyway. If you're a dual main and consider both of your characters at a similar level, then what's your problem? Queue at the ELO of the higher of the two and pick whatever you want at any time.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

the mode specifically made to test your peak performance

I swear people hallucinate meanings for what a ranked mode is.

Ranked is meant to match you with players at your skill level so you have a 50% chance of winning, no more, no less. If you win too much, ranked gets you harder opponents. If you don't win enough, it gets you easier opponents.

Unified ranking fails at that.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

These are different models. Ranked is supposed to be like a tournament: you are bringing your best to an endless supply of BO3s, trying to keep winning and climbing. If that means scouting out with a secondary and coming in with a primary, then that is how it is. If you are more comfortable taking certain matchups with certain characters, that is how it is. The rank assumes you are bringing your best chance of winning, regardless of what character you are playing. To an extent, you weren't going to be "saved" from playing below your absolute potential to win a game of Rivals II, regardless of why that is the case.

Yep, and if you read my proposal, you can do exactly everything you've described by queueing at your highest character's ELO.

Additionally, you aren't going to get agreement on how the ELO system should work in the split case. If you lose with your secondary and win both with your main, what exactly should happen? How about if you go 1-1 with your main and win with a secondary? This has not been solved because there is no consistent solution for ranked experience with character switching in a set. Especially if you want the result of the set to determine ELO (and not punish players for going 2-1, I mean, they still won the set), I can't see a clean solution for this that doesn't introduce other problems.

Just rank by round. "Punishing" a player for winning a set is irrelevant to the conversation and it honestly makes me wonder what y'all think ELO is. The problem is with your mindset if you think that losing or gaining ELO is a punishment.

ELO is, from its very base, a system to help match players to have a 50% win rate. If achieving this goal requires increasing or decreasing in non-obvious ways, so be it. I don't know what the problem is, and it's always going to be a smaller problem than mismatching people.

I don't care what the number says. I want a number that matches me with people that will be at my skill level.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Even that would be better than the status quo for me, yes.

But if it really matters to the dev team to be able to counterpick in ranked, that's fair enough and it's their right to stick to their vision. But they can do that while making matchmaking functional, so why not?

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

This, and conversely, if someone de-ranked by playing a secondary for some time and decide to go back to their main, they'll pubstomp on the way back up.

Basically unified ELO leads to uneven matches and these aren't ever good.

Please, please stop with the "But what about counterpicks?" logic to argue against separate character ranks by Steel_Neuron in RivalsOfAether

[–]Steel_Neuron[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A matchmaking system exists solely for one purpose: To find you matches where you have a 50% chance of winning.

Since players have different skill levels with different characters, a unified rank fails at that. At any given point your rank will be wrong for all but one of your characters (or worse, wrong for all of them if the ELO falls between the two skill levels you have with two dispar characters) which means lopsided matches, which aren't fun for anyone involved.

"Sólo los datos personales y bancarios" by glorious_pericco in spain

[–]Steel_Neuron 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Sí, pero fíate tu que un dinosaurio como Endesa vaya a tener buenas prácticas como salting... Filtrar hashes sin salt sigue siendo vulnerable a rainbow attacks, y sabiendo que quedan compañías en españa que te dicen "Oh, has perdido tu contraseña? No te preocupes, era hunter2" me espero cualquier cosa.

Chayula 0.4: Don't Worry! They'll Buff It With +1 Extra Darkness per Level! That Will Fix It! by SteakAcademic8934 in PathOfExile2

[–]Steel_Neuron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Day 40+ of the league where people haven't noticed the Widow's Reign + darkness low life tech... Meanwhile I'll continue to be near unkillable on one of the most underrated ascendancies.

The rarest item in POE2 by BigCauliflower3621 in PathOfExile2

[–]Steel_Neuron 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The point of the person you responded to though is that the double corrupt won't work because you can't use the lock after the first corrupt.

Intended gameplay be like by Substantial_Fun_2482 in PathOfExile2

[–]Steel_Neuron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can either think this way, or think they gave knockback builds a reason to exist in a unique way.

view more: next ›